|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
"hanson" wrote in message ... | was A New Limit on Photon Mass | | "Androcles" wrote: | "hanson" wrote in message | | "Androcles" wrote: | | "hanson" wrote: | | "Androcles" wrote: | | | hanson wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | Androcles wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | wherein Androcles says: | Ok. | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... [1], which was the given original. | | | hanson wrote: | Thank you, Androcles! | | Androcles wrote: | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. | | hanson wrote: | Right, Andro, but it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | the usual G = F*r^2/mM ... (from F=GmM/r^2). | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of [1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time". If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction. http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not know the region from which the light comes from. http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45 degrees, http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg but... because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an advanced position), and on the other side we see them later than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law. This is the plot for ONE star: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case. This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave radiation. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes 22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at 45 degrees from 21 million years ago. We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks really would bend in water. Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions. | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], which leads directly to | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... when [2] is expanded by time, t. | (See, how in [2] that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | ahahaha.. | | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | those Einstein Dingleberries.... with Newton's Glory!!!... | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles"
wrote: "hanson" wrote in message ... | was A New Limit on Photon Mass | | "Androcles" wrote: | "hanson" wrote in message | | "Androcles" wrote: | | "hanson" wrote: | | "Androcles" wrote: | || hanson wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | Androcles wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | wherein Androcles says: | Ok. | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... *[1], which was the given original. | || hanson wrote: | Thank you, Androcles! | | Androcles wrote: | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. | | hanson wrote: | Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2). | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time". If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction. *http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not know the region from which the light comes from. *http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45 degrees, *http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg but... because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an advanced position), and on the other side we see them later than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law. This is the plot for ONE star: *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case. This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave radiation. *http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes 22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at 45 degrees from 21 million years ago. We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks really would bend in water. Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions. | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t. | (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | ahahaha.. | | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!... | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone. The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree of 60 percent up and down. How can we say we have mastered gravity? Mitch Raemsch |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
On Aug 26, 9:34*pm, BURT wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles" wrote: "hanson" wrote in message ... | was A New Limit on Photon Mass | | "Androcles" wrote: | "hanson" wrote in message | | "Androcles" wrote: | | "hanson" wrote: | | "Androcles" wrote: | || hanson wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | Androcles wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | wherein Androcles says: | Ok. | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... *[1], which was the given original. | || hanson wrote: | Thank you, Androcles! | | Androcles wrote: | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. | | hanson wrote: | Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2). | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time". If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction. *http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not know the region from which the light comes from. *http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45 degrees, *http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg but... because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an advanced position), and on the other side we see them later than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law. This is the plot for ONE star: *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case. This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave radiation. *http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes 22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at 45 degrees from 21 million years ago. We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks really would bend in water. Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions. | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t. | (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | ahahaha.. | | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!... | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone. The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree of 60 percent up and down. That's just plain wrong. The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand. That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down. How can we say we have mastered gravity? Mitch Raemsch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still stands on the shoulders of Hooke, the physical dwarf
my Word, I hadn't expected teeheehanson to be a member
of the Second Church of England, secular, but I'd like to see an extrapolation of the idea of a barycenter, being all that a black hole is. anyway, he stole the inverse second-power law (algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints) from Hooke. thus: "hobo aether," I like that; reminds me of Descartes ad hoc metaphors to explain refraction (http://wlym.com .-) thus: you begged the question about trigona, again!... of course, the desire to make "the" new "math" is a requisite, but monsieur seems to be totally pre-impressed with his "new" math, or his imagination. I am quite comfortable in my own well established reality thus: Bill's assertion about layfolk intuition is the best, I've seen, so far, as *raison d'etre* for contradictive induction. but, I didn't get what he said about "nonconstructive" contradictive induction. anyway, you'll have to rent your own broom, going or coming to the Magic Kingdom; I don't take passengers! --les ducs d'Enron! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
On Aug 27, 9:01*am, PD wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:34*pm, BURT wrote: On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles" wrote: "hanson" wrote in message ... | was A New Limit on Photon Mass | | "Androcles" wrote: | "hanson" wrote in message | | "Androcles" wrote: | | "hanson" wrote: | | "Androcles" wrote: | || hanson wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | Androcles wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | wherein Androcles says: | Ok. | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... *[1], which was the given original. | || hanson wrote: | Thank you, Androcles! | | Androcles wrote: | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. | | hanson wrote: | Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2). | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time". If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction. *http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not know the region from which the light comes from. *http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45 degrees, *http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg but... because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an advanced position), and on the other side we see them later than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law. This is the plot for ONE star: *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case. This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave radiation. *http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes 22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at 45 degrees from 21 million years ago. We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks really would bend in water. Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions. | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t. | (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | ahahaha.. | | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!... | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone. The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree of 60 percent up and down. That's just plain wrong. The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand. That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down. How can we say we have mastered gravity? Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all. You are being dishonest about what you consider to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy. Mitch Raemsch |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
Lyndon LaRouche jr. "spudnik" wrote:
Newton still stands on the shoulders of Hooke, the physical dwarf hanson wrote: http://tinyurl.com/d2G-Barycenter-BH Lydon jr. wrote: I'd like to see an extrapolation of the idea of a barycenter, being all that a black hole is. hanson wrote: .... very good. Do that extrapolation then. I am not here to teach. However, I lamented about it in several posts in the past. ... I am here for fun... ahahahaha... Lydon jr. wrote: anyway, Newton stole the inverse second-power law (algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints) from Hooke. hanson wrote: You may be right. That period 1650-1750 was a century just like ~1850-1950. Both periods had cliques of thinkers and tinkerers that were were plagiarizing off each other. In the case I discussed in the link above your comments about R. Hooke's anticipating of Newton's gravitational modeling, nicely adds to the already well known story of Einstein's plagiary. Thanks, "dood", ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson Lydon jr. wrote: thus: [snipped cryptic crap] --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
On Aug 27, 6:02*pm, BURT wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:01*am, PD wrote: On Aug 26, 9:34*pm, BURT wrote: On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles" wrote: "hanson" wrote in message ... | was A New Limit on Photon Mass | | "Androcles" wrote: | "hanson" wrote in message | | "Androcles" wrote: | | "hanson" wrote: | | "Androcles" wrote: | || hanson wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | Androcles wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | wherein Androcles says: | Ok. | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... *[1], which was the given original. | || hanson wrote: | Thank you, Androcles! | | Androcles wrote: | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. | | hanson wrote: | Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2). | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time". If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction. *http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut...on_spiral..jpg If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not know the region from which the light comes from. *http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45 degrees, *http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg but... because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an advanced position), and on the other side we see them later than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law. This is the plot for ONE star: *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case. This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave radiation. *http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes 22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at 45 degrees from 21 million years ago. We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks really would bend in water. Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions. | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t. | (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | ahahaha.. | | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!... | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone. The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree of 60 percent up and down. That's just plain wrong. The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand. That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down. How can we say we have mastered gravity? Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all. But we do. It's been measured to much much better than 60% for centuries. You are being dishonest about what you consider to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy. I'm sorry, Mitch, but that just isn't so. We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this doesn't mean that we don't know anything now. You're too consumed by humility, too obsessed with thinking that we know nothing at all, so much so that you discount what we do know. Mitch Raemsch |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
Paul "PD" wrote: On Aug 27, 6:02 pm, BURT wrote: On Aug 27, 9:01 am, PD wrote: On Aug 26, 9:34 pm, BURT wrote: On Aug 26, 1:08 am, "Androcles" wrote: "hanson" wrote: | || hanson wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | | Androcles wrote: | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | wherein Androcles says: | Ok. | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... [1], which was the given original. | || hanson wrote: | Thank you, Androcles! | | Androcles wrote: Androcles wrote: | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. hanson wrote: | Right, Andro, but it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | the usual G = F*r^2/mM ... (from F=GmM/r^2). | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of [1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], which leads directly to | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... when [2] is expanded by time, t. | (See, how in [2] that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | ahahaha.. | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | those Einstein Dingleberries.... with Newton's Glory!!!... | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote: The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree of 60 percent up and down. Paul Draper wrote: That's just plain wrong. The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand. That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down. Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote: How can we say we have mastered gravity? We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all. Paul Draper wrote: But we do. It's been measured to much much better than 60% for centuries. Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote: You are being dishonest about what you consider to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy. Paul Draper wrote: I'm sorry, Mitch, but that just isn't so. We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this doesn't mean that we don't know anything now. You're too consumed by humility, too obsessed with thinking that we know nothing at all, so much so that you discount what we do know. hanson wrote: To Paul: Mitch might be enamored with the thought that we are able to measure the product of m*G to great accuracy, wheres we are NOT so for the size of G itself... and so he blames G ahahaha.... Also consider, that Mitch's Humility stems from his heavy religious baggage, well, that cross, that he carries.... ahahaha... AFA your wishful thinking that "we may know more in the future", you have conditioned it wisely with the word "may". Since physics happens to be a social enterprise, physics is only as stable as are the thin veneers of society, culture & civilisation. There were plenty of dark ages in history where "we" knew less in the future then we knew in the past... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Einstein
"hanson" wrote in message ... | | Paul "PD" wrote: | On Aug 27, 6:02 pm, BURT wrote: | On Aug 27, 9:01 am, PD wrote: | On Aug 26, 9:34 pm, BURT wrote: | On Aug 26, 1:08 am, "Androcles" wrote: | "hanson" wrote: | | | || hanson wrote: | | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question | | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G | | | | | | Androcles wrote: | | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution | | wherein Androcles says: | | Ok. | | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt | | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k. | | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... [1], which was the given original. | | || hanson wrote: | | | Thank you, Androcles! | | | Androcles wrote: | | Androcles wrote: | | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear. | | hanson wrote: | | Right, Andro, but it'll become clear. It is interesting to view | | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from | | the usual G = F*r^2/mM ... (from F=GmM/r^2). | | | | Looking at "G" from the aspect of [1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2, | | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ... | | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same. | | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer | | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap... | | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak | | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters | | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies... | | | | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation | | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are | | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic | | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds... | | | | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory | | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been | | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission, | | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and | | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], which leads directly to | | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... when [2] is expanded by time, t. | | (See, how in [2] that **rho and G** combo surfaces again) | | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation | | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity. | | | | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the | | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century | | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso | | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries. | | | | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds | | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less | | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly | construction | | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address... | | ahahaha.. | | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2] | | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all | | those Einstein Dingleberries.... with Newton's Glory!!!... | | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson | | | Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote: | The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate | to the degree of 60 percent up and down. | | Paul Draper wrote: | That's just plain wrong. | The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand. | That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down. | | Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote: | How can we say we have mastered gravity? | We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all. | | Paul Draper wrote: | But we do. It's been measured to much much better than 60% for | centuries. | | Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote: | You are being dishonest about what you consider | to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy. | | Paul Draper wrote: | I'm sorry, Mitch, but that just isn't so. We may know more in the | future than what we know now, but this doesn't mean that we | don't know anything now. You're too consumed by humility, too | obsessed with thinking that we know nothing at all, so much | so that you discount what we do know. | | hanson wrote: | To Paul: Mitch might be enamored with the thought that we | are able to measure the product of m*G to great accuracy, | wheres we are NOT so for the size of G itself... and so he | blames G ahahaha.... Also consider, that Mitch's Humility | stems from his heavy religious baggage, well, that cross, | that he carries.... ahahaha... | AFA your wishful thinking that "we may know more in the | future", you have conditioned it wisely with the word "may". | Since physics happens to be a social enterprise, physics | is only as stable as are the thin veneers of society, culture & | civilisation. There were plenty of dark ages in history where | "we" knew less in the future then we knew in the past... | Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson | Phuckwit Duck likes to tie his negatives up in (k)nots and say nothing... "We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this does NOT mean that we do NOT know anything now. " We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this does NOT mean that sausages are a dog's breakfast. What DOES it mean, Phuckwit Duck? We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this does mean that Phuckwit Duck knows nothing now. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Newton still towers over Hooke -- laying down!
wow; never done a proof by contradiction, Andormorph?
thus: wow, that is exemplary, dood. (of course, it's in the M&M paper, that they most certainly did n o t find "no results," however slight .-) You cannot have an aether that is at rest with any one body. If the earth were at rest with the aether at any point, then every other galaxy that is accelerating away from earth would experience an aether flow towards earth, and *their* light would be affected. Therefore the aether must be moving in all directions wrt ALL bodies equally. M and M simply disproved something that could not be possible in the first place. thus: Bjorn's change-of-heart could've been predicted, since 1st espoused his views in a Holy Economist guest editorial -- the only thing that is ever signed by an author in it. so, naturally, he is a proponent of bpTM's old KyotoTM cap&tradeTM, and my Rep. Waxman's and my California Assemblywoman's (now Senator) cap&trade derivatives, a.k.a. "free-er trade on the free market -- free beer &or freedom!" and, of course, one of Bjorn's telltales is that cold generally leads to more deaths than heat, per annum. thus: he stole that from Hooke, then burnt all of his portraits -- "ahahaha, on the shoulders of that clever little dwarf!" (viz, Sir I., the plagiarist, Freemason, alchemist- who-burnt-his-"Principles"-in-an-accident-and- had-it-"reconstructed"-by-the-RS-with-the-dydx-rectangle etc. ad vomitorium .-) thus: Euclid's proof is so simple, that it takes a truly linguistically challenged individual to dyss it; after all, all of math problems are, really, wordproblemmas! thus: as for ordinary spatial finite elements, you really need tetrahedronometry; eh? --les ducs d'Enron! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newton still towers over Einstein | Androcles[_33_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 28th 10 09:33 PM |
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 9 | December 11th 09 02:04 PM |
HOW EINSTEIN OUTDID NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 6th 09 05:38 PM |
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 3rd 08 09:38 AM |
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 1st 07 01:07 PM |